On 15/06/2013, at 12:34 AM, Thomas Allen wrote:
> That makes sense. My only hesitation there is that I might eventually
> need the ability to embed more information than type specifications
> allow me to: Leaning on type specs feels like a dead end.
>
There's another approach.
Define your own "record" language,
and generate the Erlang code (*including* -record declarations) from that.
Your "language" could just a data structure like
{record, foo, [
{Field,Type,...},
...
}.
which could be enriched with whatever hints you want for JSON, BSON,
or whatever else takes your fancy.